Jump to content


Trump Legal Troubles

Danny Bateman

By Danny Bateman,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts

teachercd Head Coach

teachercd

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, knapplc said:

It's interesting that we have no word that Rudy Giuliani has been named as a target by the J6 probe, but we know he testified in front of them for eight hours.

 

If Rudy flips, that could nail Orange Man Bad. 

And you think he would flip… It would make sense that he would look out for himself.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

funhusker All-American

funhusker

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

So if the J6 indictment comes, does that get lumped in with the documents charges for one big trial or would it be a separate trial at a different court/location?

They would be completely different charges unrelated to each other, wouldn’t they?

  • TBH 1
Link to comment


TGHusker Offensive Coordinator

TGHusker

Posted
Posted

Possible charge related to J6 =  Defrauding the United States,  Obstructing an official proceeding & Inciting a rebellion

 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/jan-6-trump-indictment-very-084758785.html

Quote


A group of scholars including former ambassador Norman Eisen, government watchdog nonprofit leader Noah Bookbinder, former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer, and New York’s former chief public corruption investigator E. Danya Perry put together a model prosecution memo that examines what the DOJ can do with that.

Trump could be charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 371—conspiracy to defraud the United States—which carries a five-year prison sentence if two or more people join forces to “commit any offense” against the country. In their memo, legal scholars also cite how Trump and his advisers mounted a pressure campaign on then-Vice President Mike Pence that would have had him abuse his role as the overseer of the electoral certification—a clear violation of the Constitution.

On that note, a federal judge in California last year already found that Trump and John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who advised him to manipulate Pence this way, likely violated this conspiracy-to-defraud law.

investigators can point to a heated email exchange between Eastman and Greg Jacob, the former vice president’s lawyer, which was documented by the Jan. 6 Committee’s final report. When Eastman conceded that they were asking Pence to commit a “relatively minor violation” of the Electoral Count Act, Jacob pushed back on the ridiculous idea and asked if Eastman had at the very least told Trump that the vice president doesn’t legally have that power. Eastman’s response was that Trump had “been so advised” and later added: “But you know him—once he gets something in his head, it is hard to get him to change course.”

There’s a third angle to a possible violation of § 371: over the way Trump tried to use Jeffrey Clark, a MAGA loyalist in the upper decks of the DOJ.

 

Trump briefly considered elevating Clark to become the nation’s attorney general, where he could weaponize the Justice Department by casting doubt on the election results and pressuring states to use the fake electors.

Part of this investigation could focus on Trump’s efforts to also threaten Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the now-infamous January 2021 phone call in which Trump asked him to “find 11,780 votes” to overturn the election there. And it appears that Smith’s team is examining Trump’s similarly menacing behavior directed at the man who was Arizona’s governor during the 2020 election, Doug Ducey—whom Trump grew to despise for refusing to flip the results in the Grand Canyon State. 

 

Quote

 

Obstructing an official proceeding

Trump could also be slapped with the same criminal charge the DOJ has used against more than 200 of the MAGA loyalists who assaulted the Capitol building during the winter insurrection: impeding an official proceeding. Another model prosecution memo put together last year by former Michigan federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade lays this charge out.

The massive crowd showed up at Trump’s direction following his December tweet and his D.C. speech that day calling for them to march on Congress. As the DOJ has proven time and time again in court, the rioters attempted—and succeeded—in interrupting the certification of the 2020 election results.

For that, Smith could charge Trump with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which prohibits obstructing, influencing, or impeding “any official proceeding”—or even attempting to do so. That carries a hefty 20-year prison term.

Inciting a rebellion

The most serious criminal charge is also the hardest to prove—and using it would be an extraordinary maneuver.

Smith could try to hold Trump directly responsible for the savage violence his followers exacted on dozens of police officers—and the extensive property damage on the Capitol, which the DOJ estimated last year at $2.9 million.

Legal scholars have pointed to 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which severely punishes anyone engaged in outright rebellion. It dates back to a time when the nation was at war with itself, and the Union found it necessary to snuff out any flame of violent resistance.

At only 57 words, the text has barely changed since it was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, and prosecutors haven’t used it since the Civil War, according to an in-depth analysis by two college professors writing for the Illinois Law Review.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Oh Yeah! 1
Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...